Part II ＞ Our Efforts and Transformation and Fence Criminals Act violates the principle “indigenous” status depended on registration Constitution and contravenes the intent that rather that it depended on the two cumulative of proportionality prescribed in Article 23 of the “personal freedom shall be guaranteed to the people” stipulated in Article 8 of the Constitution. The limitation of a criminal’s personal freedom as stipulated in Article 3, paragraph 3 of the Organized Crime Prevention Act also violates the principles of constitutional proportionality and significant distinction as well as article 8 of the Constitution according to which “personal freedom shall be guaranteed to the people”. These conclusions largely coincide with our interpretation. b. The Indigenous Peoples Status of Children of Intermarriage Between Indigenous and Non-indigenous Peoples Case (TCC Judgment 111-Hsien-Pan-4, 2022) This case concerns the difficulties children born from a marriage between an indigenous person and a non-indigenous person face in acquiring recognition as “indigenous people”. The case aims to discuss the provisions set out in Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Status Act for Indigenous Peoples (SAIP), which prescribe that, in order to acquire recognition as an indigenous person, a child must inherit either their father’s or mother’s surname or their traditional indigenous name. criteria of heredity (jus sanguinis) and self- acknoweldgment. Determining the concrete implications of these principles should be the task of legislators, who may also take into account the transmission of indigenous languages and cultures, as well as the national resources available. ii. Legislators naturally have room for deliberation in the task of drawing up the law, whilst given the principle of separation of powers, judicial bodies and executive agencies must ensure they respect this. Thus, as applied to the above case, it is unlikely that SAIP Article 4 paragraph 2 is unconstitutional. However, the Taiwan Constitutional Court decided differently and considered that Article 4, paragraph 2, of the SAIP, was unconstitutional as it infringed upon the right to identity and the legal intent of equality. c. Case on the National Health Insurance Research Database (TCC Judgment 111-Hsien-Pan-13, 2022 ) The question in this case deals with whether the National Health Insurance Administration (NHIA) The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Ministry of Health and Welfare (MOHW) that indigenous peoples are entitled to the of National Health Insurance (NHI) established determination. The argument the NHRC set forth to the Health and Welfare Data Science Center 2022, was founded on these and other principles allowed to grant use of this data by others. of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), stipulates may transmit data held in the research database right to non-discrimination and the right to self- by the National Health Research Institute (NHRI) before the Constitutional Court on January 17, (HWDC), and whether both bodies should be prescribed by international human rights law. i. The NHRC argued that the legal intent (mens legis) of Article 4, Paragraph 2 of the SAIP was not to say that the acquisition of 42 or any form of governmental recognition, but National Human Rights Commission 2022 Annual Report Tsai Tzung-jen and others of the Taiwan Association for Human Rights (TAHR) petitioned for constitutional interpretation because, without the consent of the concerned party, the provision